Can We Abort the Abortionist?

This is adapted from a comment I made in ‘The Modern Holocaust‘ post.

If abortion is the modern holocaust, can one do what the Americans did to the Nazis, and abort the abortionist? Weelll, let’s see…

When I equate abortion to the holocaust, it comes with the broadened correlation normal in a comparison, but I think it’s a fair analogy. When judging a moral act, there are three aspects in consideration, all of which contribute to the morality of it: object (the objective act itself), end (subjective intent) and circumstance (context and factors which situate it in degree and quality). Objectively speaking, yes, the acts involved are comparable; it involves, like the Nazi holocaust, the killing of innocent human beings. Subjectively speaking, it can vary to an extent; women who choose abortion are often taught to think of the baby as part of her body (which is scientifically erroneous, as you are aware from the difference in DNA, blood type, etc.). Circumstance does not play such a great part here, since it deals with an intrinsically evil act in its object – it’s always wrong no matter how, when, or where it’s done.

Now, in relation to the use of violence, the use of violence is always the last resort, usually in the form of self-defence, in order to preserve innocent life in face of an unjust aggressor. Even though abortion would qualify in the self-defence category, it would not seem to fulfill others that the Nazi case would have. These can be enumerated under the ‘just war’ theory (CCC #2309):

– The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

– there must be serious prospects of success;

– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

So, can one abort an abortionist? Although it is not intrinsically impermissible (for the sake of defending the innocent life of the child – not for the sake of wanting the abortionist abortion!), there are no present situations in which this would be ethical.

In any case, the exhortation for Christians remains, as always: “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Rom 12:21)

Soap Opera: Sex, Sadness & Suicide

This is from a post on the Family Life NZ blog, Semper Vita, in response to a poster who asked what was so wrong with showing intimate scenes on TV given violence that is depicted and accepted.

---

As bad as depiction of gratuitous violence on television is, I think it’s evident enough that depiction of sexual scenes affect people much more immediately and internally, to an extent that would not be healthy for children who are neither emotionally nor relationally ready. Such exposures tend to make them regard as normal, and more likely to go into, something that they are unprepared to go through with with commitment due to the consequences and responsibility that naturally follow. This much is usually common sense.

As the article “Sex, sadness and suicide” from WorldNetDaily points out, there’s something of a glamorization of licentious lifestyles on television that’s far from reality:

“Even those TV viewers who consider themselves big fans of the teen soaps – “Beverly Hills 90210,” “Party of Five” and the now-defunct “Dawson’s Creek” – must have realized that something about the way those shows depicted sex just didn’t ring true.”

It quotes a research paper from Heritage, “Sexually Active Teenagers Are More Likely to Be Depressed and to Attempt Suicide”, which shows a significant correlation between early sexual activity and rate of depression and suicide among teenagers. 63% (v.s. 32%) of boys and 72% (v.s. 25%) of girls admit they regret having early sexual encounters when they were not ready.

The greater percentage among girls is particularly notable when placed in context of greater likelihood of life-long effects for them, including (from “Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple SexualPartners Among Women: Charts”) greater likeliness of contracting STD’s, having out-of-wedlock pregnancies, less stable marriages and abortions, becoming single mothers, and so on and so forth. In real life, as these research clearly show, those with more sexual partners and those who become sexually active at an early age are in fact less happy, and more likely to be depressed.

Those promoting promiscuous attitudes are clearly acting irresponsibly (knowingly or otherwise), and they do not have the best interests of the person in mind.

Soul of the Apostolate – Prologue

Taken from the Prologue from Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard, O.C.S.O.

---

The Soul of the Apostolate

Prologue

EX QUO OMNIA,

PER QUEM OMNIA,

IN QUO OMNIA[1]

O God, infinitely good and great, wonderful indeed are the truths that faith lays open to us, concerning the life which Thou leadest within Thyself: and these truths dazzle us.

Father all holy, Thou dost contemplate Thyself forever in the Word, Thy perfect image — Thy Word exults in rapt joy at Thy beauty — and, Father and Son, from Your joint ecstasy, leaps forth the strong flame of love, the Holy Spirit.

You alone, O adorable Trinity, are the interior life, perfect, superabundant, and infinite.

Goodness unlimited, You desire to spread this, Your own inner life, everywhere, outside Yourself. You speak: and Your works spring forth out of nothingness, to declare Your perfections and to sing Your glory.

Between You and the dust quickened by Your breath, there is a deep abyss: and this, Your Holy Spirit wishes to bridge. Thus He will find a way of satisfying His immense need to love, to give Himself.

And therefore He calls forth, from Your bosom, the decree that we become divine. Wonder of wonders! This clay, fashioned by Your hands, will have the power to be deified, and share in Your eternal happiness..

Your Word offers Himself for the fulfillment of this work.

And He is made flesh, that we may become gods.[2]

And yet, O Word, Thou hast not left the bosom of Thy Father. It is there that Thy essential life subsists, and it is from this source that the marvels of Thy apostolate are to flow.

O Jesus, Emmanuel, Thou dost hand over to Thy apostles Thy Gospel, Thy Cross, Thy Eucharist, and givest them the mission to go forth and beget for Thy Father, sons of adoption.

And then Thou dost return, ascending, to Thy Father.

Thine, henceforth, O Holy Spirit, is the care of sanctifying and directing the Mystical Body of the God-man.[3]

Thou deignest to take unto Thyself fellow-workers, in Thy function of bringing, from the Head, divine life into the members.

Burning with Pentecostal fires, they will go forth to sow broadcast in the minds of all, the word that enlightens, and in all hearts the grace that enkindles. Thus will they impart to men that divine life of which Thou art the fullness.

✸               ✸

O Divine Fire, stir up in all those who have part in Thy apostolate, the flames that transformed those fortunate retreatments in the Upper Room. Then they will be no longer mere preachers of dogma or moral theology, but men living to transfuse the Blood of God into the souls of men.

Spirit of Light, imprint upon their minds, in characters that can never be erased, this truth: that their apostolate will be successful only in the measure that they themselves live that supernatural inner life of which Thou art the sovereign PRINCIPLE and Jesus Christ the SOURCE.

O infinite Charity, make their wills burn with thirst for the interior life. Penetrate and flood their hearts with Thy sweetness and strength, and show them that, even here on this earth, there is no real happiness except in this life of imitation and sharing in Thine own life and in that of the Heart of Jesus in the bosom of the Father of all mercy and all kindness.

✸               ✸

O Mary Immaculate, Queen of apostles, deign to bless these simple pages. Grant that all who read them may really understand that, if it please God to use their activity as an ordinary instrument of His Providence, in pouring out His heavenly riches upon the souls of men, this activity, if it is to produce any results, will have to participate, somehow, in the nature of the Divine Act as Thou didst behold it in the bosom of God when He, to Whom we owe the power of calling thee our Mother, became incarnate in the virginal womb.

---

[1] Liturgy. Fifth antiphon of Matins for the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity – quoted from 1 Cor 8:6.

[2] Factus est homo ut homo fieret dues (St. Augustine, Serm. 2 de Nativ.).

[3] Deus, cujus Spiritu totum corpus sanctificatur et regitur. Liturgy.

Obtaining Graces

The grace one obtains in life, and therefore sanctity, depends upon participation in Christ, for He is the God-man, the only mediator to the Father. For this reason, Jesus tells us, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). At the same time, however, this implies effort on our part, to freely respond to Him in the means of grace He gives us, especially in the sacraments. This can only take place in and through dying to ourselves:

“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” (Romans 6:3-5)

Indeed, this is the condition of Christian discipleship:

“If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” (Luke 9:23-25)

Accordingly, one obtains new and everlasting life in Christ – by becoming sons in the Son:

“So then, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh– for if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship.” (Romans 8:12-15)

In practical terms, Pope Pius XII outlines for us in his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi (On the Mystical Body of Christ – ie., those of us Baptised into Christ) what these imply in our lives:

For although our Savior’s cruel passion and death merited for His Church an infinite treasure of graces, God’s inscrutable providence has decreed that these graces should not be granted to us all at once; but their greater or lesser abundance will depend in no small part on our own good works, which draw down on the souls of men a rain of heavenly gifts freely bestowed by God. These heavenly gifts will surely flow more abundantly if we not only pray fervently to God, especially by participating every day if possible in the Eucharistic Sacrifice; if we not only try to relieve the distress of the needy and of the sick by works of Christian charity, but if we also set our hearts on the good things of eternity rather than on the passing things of this world; if we restrain this mortal body by voluntary mortification, denying it what is forbidden, and by forcing it to do what is hard and distasteful; and finally, if we humbly accept as from God’s hands the burdens and sorrows of this present life. Thus, according to the Apostle, “we shall fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ in our flesh for His Body, which is the Church.”

Assent to the Cross and to Love

 

As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.

John 15:9-11

As a being who is both spiritual and material, consisting of both body and soul (CCC 362-368), one is bound to experience the paradox of having angelic and animalistic parts to himself. Part of this is in experienced, to some degree in our struggle with temptation, but most profoundly in suffering, and especially in suffering involving love – we are able to donate (give) ourselves to the other in ways that are truly human and spiritual, yet this opens us up to hurts that would not have come otherwise, when a genuine form of love is spurned, not understood, or, worse still, abused. When this happens – especially in childhood – one can recoil into oneself, and stop loving, for the fear of being hurt.

Yet this is not conducive to one’s flourishing and fulfilment, especially in one’s destiny and ultimate purpose of living – to give oneself for the sake of the other. In Scriptural terms, the same is outlined in the two greatest commandments, the fulfilment of all law: “you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength”, and, “[y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31). These are the greatest and guiding principles for our lives.

What, then, can one do to fulfil the aim of our lives in such a sorrowful state, of recoiling in on oneself? One in this state is afraid to love and so, in compensating, one is also prone to resorting to lower loves, which, divorced from the order of the higher love, is sinful and damaging to authentic love. In such an instance, it is often not enough to simply be told that one must do this and that – in fact, it can be downright unhelpful and unproductive. In fact, the point of reference must be changed. It is not primarily what we must do – since it is in relation to others that we operate, often in fear of further hurt, it is in reference to the ultimate Other that we must perceive all others and, yes, ourselves also. What we must do is secondary – it comes out of what is first, which is the contemplative gaze on the the One, our reference point.

As Blessed Elizabeth of the Trinity testifies, “[w]e shall not be purified by looking at our miseries, but by gazing on Him who is all purity and holiness.” And He makes Himself available to our sensible dimension in the person of Jesus Christ. By gazing at the crucifix, and realising the call on all the Baptized to imitate Him in the cross, (Romans 6:4-8), denying oneself so as to live with Him in His resurrection, we come to face sufferings and self-denials not in a passive state, as a victim, but with our assent and will, to accept it for the sake of Him who calls us to imitate Him, in His love for us, and so as also to remain in His love (John 15:9-11).

However, this dimension is but one side. We must also accept not as divine vengence, but as a mark of filial love, for in this, we are made adopted children of the Father who loved us with an everlasting love (Romans 8:11-17). Accepting the cross is to accept one’s lovableness in Christ (since this is earned not by us, but by Christ), and love itself. This is necessary to accept first, since one cannot give what one does not have – if one does not realised or cannot accept that he is eternally loved, one cannot love neither the infinite God nor persons made in His image and likeness.

And so, the crux is as follows. If God is the author of reality, and thus the ultimate measure of all created realities, we do not regard merely human standards as the final word, nor any immediate reality in front of us, since it is limited in every way by space, time, and dimension. The purpose of our lives can be realised in, firstly: a) accepting the cross God gives us; b) and yet in joy, since we must also accept that, in the cross, we are worthy to be loved (since God is the judge of that – not us nor any other created persons). Out of this, firstly, we can deny ourselves the temptations of sin, in order to remain in the love of Christ and so, in Him, as beloved children of the Father who loved us into creation. In the same movement – and most importantly, as the primary aim and purpose of our lives – we can begin to love God, and our neighbour for the love of Him, with the totality of our being, to give ourselves with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength to God.

It is in this paradox – to accept the cross is to accept love – that one can find true rest, willing (actively with one’s whole being, and not in passivity) both the suffering of the cross and, at once, the consolations from being worthy of love in Christ’s sonship (which we likewise accept with equal strength and totality – naturally giving us spiritual joy), one can uphold harmony in one’s own being, in the spiritual and material reality of one’s existence as human being.

Seeing the Truth about Reality through Science and Realist Philosophy

Here’s a rather important question about life, the universe and everything: How do we know what is real? What’s the truth about our existence, and in our experiences of the world?

I’m going to suggest something that may not be too apparent to some. I’m going to suggest that we find ourselves in the contemporary world, amidst all the latest discoveries and technological progress, that we’re further and further out of touch with the true reality; artificial belief systems and environment of the contemporary world tends to make difficult the search for the truth about what’s real, since we’re less exposed to what is truly real. It’s almost as if we’ve constructed for ourselves a highly comfortable and even more effective versions of Plato’s cave, and think ourselves more enlightened for it.

There is possibly a danger of seeing science as the only way to encounter the concrete reality and relegating philosophy to a real of abstract speculations that have nothing to do with our concrete experiences. While science is a very good way of seeing the quantifiable world, Realist philosophy of Aristotle (with background in Socrates and Plato) can help up in jogging us to being awake to the reality that’s been in front of us all the time.

It’s quite helpful to realise that, in a sense, the experiences that are most “concretely” real to us are not experiences of the scientific sort at all, but experiences of the everyday reality; the sort that we end up expressing in the grammar and ways of talking about things. We never say, “a previously encountered carbon-based biped produced high-frequency aural outbursts toward this set of aural receptors at 1132 hours GMT” – we say, “my annoying little sister was screaming at me this morning” (well, some of us might 😉 ). The qualitative and holistic ways of looking at things is the most real to us – the quantitative is real, yes, but only secondary. A person is seen as a whole person that is living (life being the source of that wholeness) and does meaningful things, not as a mere collection of bits of flesh and chemicals operating as a clever but lifeless (because lack of life means lack of any real unity and wholeness) machine that only does mechanical (and hence meaningless) movements and actions in space and time.

We don’t wonder enough at the mysterious reality present in plants, animals and human persons, and in the fact that they exist as unities (an animal is one real thing, which also contains within itself many bits). The difference is apparent in the change when a thing comes to be, or dies. In coming to be, it start almost from a point, and expands out of itself, actually accumulating more matter into itself (and so transcending the parts it’s made of), all the while remaining the same actual thing (a baby and a teenager are both human beings – the difference is in their stages of growth). When it dies, there’s no longer that unity, but only a collection of bits (which is seen more readily as it scatters as dust). This is why when a person dies, we know (even when we’re looking at the body) that he or she is no longer there.

It’s a funny society that we have today. We tend to think the deepest reality is to be found in the artificial deconstruction of what’s in front of us, little realising that a real, living thing dies when it’s dismembered from its wholeness. We must learn again to look at the reality holistically, and recover the art of preserving living and holistic realities when studying their complexities.

[Compiled and edited from my posts in a Being Frank thread]

Is Catholicism Man-made or God-sent?: The Resurrection Evidence

From a very random dialogue on the web. 

Poster 1: Catholicism is true christianity. The only true family of God. All other religion is man-made.

Poster 2: Actually, all religions are man made.If you can prove otherwise be my guest 🙂

Poster 3 (moi): Ah, but why should such an a priori assumption be more credible than faith? Remember, faith is not blind – it resolves eventually to sight. What I mean is, if I told you that I had crumbed fish for dinner tonight, and you believe me, you now have a new piece of knowledge based on hearing (because I really did have crumbed fish last night). Whether or not it is true depends on the credibility of the witness. That aspect, for Christianity, can be historically examined and tested, since it is a religion of eye witnesses and public revelations (unlike, um… I can’t think of any other, actually!).

Since you ask for proof, I’ll give you a challenge. Why not examine the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection, starting with the websites of Peter Kreeft (www.peterkreeft.com) and William Lane Craig (www.reasonablefaith.org)? This is a good, central topic, because one can say to all Christians with St. Paul, “…if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” (I Corinthians 15:17).

Go on, I dare you – take the challenge from this agnostic-turned-Catholic. 😉 Here’s the link to the first article: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm

And God bless ye’ – all, who seek, shall find. 🙂

Understanding Vatican II

It seems there is a wide-spread misunderstanding of what Vatican II is, and what the Council Fathers intended. Here’s something I compiled from some posts I made on the topic.

There seems to be often a misunderstanding that Vatican II “changed everything” in the Church, and that there is therefore a radical break from tradition and nothing prior to the 1960s is valid any longer.

Nothing can be farther from the truth.

The hermeneutics, or interpretation, of Vatican II should be carried out in the spirit intended by the Council Fathers, which is also the Apostolic and Catholic spirit of continuation and reform of tradition, rather than rapture, as Holy Father has pointed out (also as Cardinal). Hence, it can never be so ‘radically different’ as to negate what has been handed down from the past.

Perhaps the key to understanding Vatican II is Lumen Gentium, which is the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. As one of the two dogmatic constitutions (the other being Dei Verbum), It is arguably the most important document from the Council. In it, the identity of the Church is examined by the Council Fathers as they explicitly state in their opening paragraph, “This [the Sacred Synod] intends to do following faithfully the teaching of previous councils”. There is not a conflict here at all, but (as with all authentic Catholic doctrine) an organic development. This becomes clear upon objective reading of the document itself.

Now, the term “People of God” is used of the Church in the second chapter of Lumen Gentium. This was the term used in order to capture the “bird’s eye view”, as it were, of the Church. Often, the use of the phrase in chapter 2 is regarded as emphasising this aspect over and above the others, as a sort of hint of democratization of the Church, which counters the ‘pre-Vatican-II’, hierarchical concept. This is, of course, an over-simplification.

The ‘people Church’ includes the hierarchy (LG, chapter 3) as well as the laity (LG, chapter 4). The term “people of God” was used to recall the Old Testament, in order to stress the Scriptural continuity of the Church, as well as to provide a term for the Church which could embrace all the various elements (such as the hierarchy, the laity, and the religious) which follow chapter 2. It is not meant as an isolated term to negate all the elements which are implicitly found in it.

Besides, it’s arguable that the most comprehensive term for the Church is ‘sacrament’, used in the opening paragraph, since this is the mystery of the Church as outlined in the first chapter, which is also inclusive of the people of God, as part of the Church’s sacramental operation (invisible grace working through the Church’s visible members).

‘People of God’ is one aspect of the Church that is further illucidated in the proceeding chapters. As a term which emcompasses the others, it is necessarily a general term that needs to be seen in the light of all of the others (and vice versa, of course). Thus, it necessarily needs to respect the other seven chapters in the document. One cannot emphasise the second chapter without considering the third, and vice versa:

1. The Mystery Of The Church
2. On The People Of God
3. On The Hierarchical Structure Of The Church And In Particular On The Episcopate
4. The Laity
5. The Universal Call To Holiness In The Church
6. Religious
7. The Eschatological Nature Of The Pilgrim Church And Its Union With The Church In Heaven
8. The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother Of God In The Mystery Of Christ And The Church

There is certainly a doctrinal development in ecclesiology, or the theology about the Church, but it is an organic development, not one of rapture from Apostolic Tradition (found in sacred scripture and articulated in the early Church by Ignatius of Antioch, among others). This is crucial, since Apostolic Tradition is constitutive of the Church (2Thess 3:6) – without this divine means of guidance, there can be no Church, for the Church is not a merely human social institution, but one that is divinely established (Mt 16:18)

The Church: Her Mission and Structure

[This was written in reply to an article discussing a supposed patriarchal domination in history and the Church]

As perspective and perception play large roles in determining one’s response and sentiments regarding an issue, it may be fruitful to turn to the Ecclesiological understanding of the matter. 

We must keep in mind that the mission of the Church is fudamentally derived, rather than created. It is the Father who sends the Son, who, in turn and through the Holy Spirit, delegates His own mission to the Apostles, and through them to the entire Church. 

Thus, the activity of the Church must be first of all seen to be Pneumatological – that is, of the Holy Spirit – and directed toward its Eschatological end – that is, toward the consummation of the world and the coming of Christ. 

There is a risk of speciously perceiving the Church as a humanistic, sociological institution. It is, as Lumen Gentium states in the opening chapter, in fact a sacrament reflecting Christ’s two natures. The Church is human as well as divine, as the Holy Spirit works with human members in her. It therefore exists not for temporal purposes (although these are legitimate means and intermediate ends), but for the purpose of consecrating the world to Christ, thus bringing them to salvation, and to contemplation of God in the Beatific Vision. 

Now, because of the analogical nature of creation, which reflect that of God, all things in creation have some signification. The Holy Spirit respects this, being united with the Word through which all things have their being, and so the Pneumatic mission of the Church, which has its origin in Christ Himself, has a divinely destined structure (for a body without a form cannot exist, and the Church is that of Christ). 

This cannot be grasped purely at the natural level, since it is, as Lumen Gentium affirms, a divine and sacramental mystery. It requires the faithful’s thirst for the divine gifts – the theological virtues – of faith, hope and charity. As these virtues are inextricably linked to salvation – that is, one cannot be saved without them – the Church is rightfully called the Ark of Salvation.

The Blessed Virgin Mary

Here is part two of the Being Frank posts clarifying the Catholic concept of asking the intercession of Blessed Virgin Mary through exploration of the Biblical types she fulfilled.

< Saintly Interccession • The Blessed Virgin Mary > 

To expand on what others have written, here’s a (long-ish) summary of the typologies pertaining to Mary. A type is a symbol which points to its fulfillment. As St. Augustin said, “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New”. Examples include: Jesus as the Second Adam; Manna and spotless lamb prefiguring Christ, and ; circumcision and ccrossing of the Red Sea prefiguring baptism. The fulfilment in New Testament are found to be greater or more perfect, and more universal. They reveal the true meaning of the types.

Mary is the fulfilment of at least three types:
1. Arc of the Covenant
2. Davidic Queenship
3. Eve

Here, she is referred to in her fulfilment of these. It’s also notable that all of the following can be deduced from these in the Bible alone (although, of course, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium are necessary to validate them):

Doctrines:
• Co-redemptrix
• Mediatrix
• Advocate

Dogmas:
• Mother of God – Theotokos, “God bearer”
• Perpetual Virginity
• Immaculate Conception
• Assumption of Mary

Here are the keys used for clarification:
[T] – Type
[F] – Fulfilment

1. Arc of the New Covenant

[T] The old Arc of the Covenant contained:
1. manna (bread from Heaven)
2. Aaron’s rod (symbolising priesthood)
2. 10 commandments (God’s word in stone).

[F] The New Arc of the Covenant, the Virgin Mary, contained within her:
1. True Bread of Life from Heaven
2. the Eternal Priest after the order of Melchizedek
3. Word of God incarnate

The following parallel passages from the Old Testament foreshadow the New Arc:

[T] 2 Sam 6:9 – David says: “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?”
[F] Luke 1 – Elizabeth says: “And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?”

[T] 2 Sam 6:11 – “And the ark of the Lord abode in the house of Obededom the Gethite three months: and the Lord blessed Obededom, and all his household.”
[F] Luke 1:56-58 – “And Mary remained with her about three months (house of Zechari’ah). Now Elizabeth’s full time of being delivered was come, and she brought forth a son. And her neighbours and kinsfolks heard that the Lord had shewed his great mercy towards her, and they congratulated with her”

[T] 2 Sam 6:14 – “And David danced before the LORD”
[F] Luke 1:41 “the babe leaped in her womb”

The implications of Mary being the Arc of the New Covenant are many, including:
• Powerful intercession in battle:[T] As the Arc was in physical battle, [F] Mary fulfills this in spiritual warfare, in fulfilment of Genesis 3:15: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
• Holiness: [T] The Arc was made from acacia wood and pure gold with precise, calculated instructions (Exodus 25:10-22), the perfection of which, by the way, is shown by its conformity to the divine proportion. We also know how holy the Arc was – so much so that a man died touching it [F] (alluding also to perpetual virginity). Imagine how much holier Mary, the fulfilment of this type, is. God himself designed her to be the perfect carrier of His only Son, imbuing her with the Sanctifying grace at the moment of conception – this is what we call the Immaculate Conception.

2. Queen Mother

See the article Chris links to in #27 for a more comprehensive coverage on this one.

In the Old Testament tradition, owing to the sheer number of wives that Kings often had, the Queen was not the wife of the King, but the mother. Part of the job description for the Queen was to intercede on behalf of the people. This can be seen in 1 Kings 2:13-23:

Then Adoni’jah the son of Haggith came to Bathshe’ba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peaceably?” He said, “Peaceably.” Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” She said, “Say on.” He said, “You know that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel fully expected me to reign; however the kingdom has turned about and become my brother’s, for it was his from the LORD. And now I have one request to make of you; do not refuse me.” She said to him, “Say on.” And he said, “Pray ask King Solomon–he will not refuse you–to give me Ab’ishag the Shu’nammite as my wife.” Bathshe’ba said, “Very well; I will speak for you to the king.”

So Bathshe’ba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on behalf of Adoni’jah. And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right. Then she said, “I have one small request to make of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you.” She said, “Let Ab’ishag the Shu’nammite be given to Adoni’jah your brother as his wife.” King Solomon answered his mother, “And why do you ask Ab’ishag the Shu’nammite for Adoni’jah? Ask for him the kingdom also; for he is my elder brother, and on his side are Abi’athar the priest and Jo’ab the son of Zeru’iah.” Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, “God do so to me and more also if this word does not cost Adoni’jah his life!

So we observe that the Queen Mother:
1. Sits on the right hand of the King (a position of honour and influence)
2. The King honours her
3. Her requests are given guarantee to be granted.

And so we pray to our Queen Mother – “Hail, Holy Queen” – because:
1. She is more exulted than Bathsheba because of the perfect honoring she receives from her Divine Son
2. She fulfils the duty of her office more perfectly. She is, together with her spouse the Holy Spirit, our advocate. Her intercessory prayers are therefore very powerful. This is her role as the Mediatrix, which was most notably fulfilled by being the channel through which the Saviour would come into the world.

3. New Eve

We know that Jesus is the New Adam, but the Early Church also believed that Mary is the New Eve, a co-redeemer. Jesus did not descend onto the Earth alone (which he could very well have done) but chose to implicate Mary in the plan of salvation to bring life, just as the original Adam had a partner in the fall to bring death. And so the words of Scripture are fulfilled also for the Second Adam: “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” (Genesis 2:18). Thus, she is the co-redemptrix per excellence, as the helper ordained for the Second Adam in the work of redemption.

[T] Eve, through her disobedience, brought about eternal death. 
[F] Mary, through her obedience (”let it be to me according to your word” – Luke 1:38), undid the disobedience of Eve to bring about eternal life.

[T] Eve gave to Adam (”man”) the forbidden fruit to bring about death
[F] Mary gave to man (”mankind”) the fruit of her womb (Luke 1:42) in order to bring about life.

Following this pattern, we can deduce that:
[T] Eve returned to dust (Gen 3:19)
[F] Mary was taken into Heaven (Rev 12).

[T] Adam and eve were created without the stain of original sin but lost it through their disobedience
[F] Just as New Adam was created without original sin, Mary was also (as a helper fit for him), and through their perfect obedience (culminating at Calvary, where both hearts were pierced for our sake) maintained this throughout their lifetime. This is the dogma of Immaculate Conception.

[addition] I’ve found a better one to quote from this site:

            Eve, the O.T.”Type”                                                Mary, the N.T. “Antitype”

Created without original sin, Gen 2:22-25……Created without original sin, Luke 1:28,42 *1
There was a virgin, Gen 2:22-25………………..There is a virgin, Luke 1:27-34
There was a tree, Gen 2:16-17…………………….There was a cross made from a tree, Matt 27:31-35
There was a fallen angel, Gen 3:1-13……………There was a loyal angel, Luke 1:26-38
A satanic serpent tempted her, Gen 3:4-6……….A satanic dragon threatened her, Rev 12:4-6,13-17
There was pride, Gen 3:4-7…………………………There was humility, Luke 1:38
There was disobedience, Gen 3:4-7……………….There was obedience, Luke 1:38
There was a fall, Gen 3:16-20……………………There was redemption, John 19:34
Death came through Eve, Gen 3:17-19………….Life Himself came through Mary, John 10:28
She was mentioned in Genesis 3:2-22………….She was mentioned in Genesis 3:15
Could not approach the tree of life Gen 3:24…Approached the “Tree of Life”, John 19:25
An angel kept her out of Eden, Gen 3:24………An angel protected her, Rev 12:7-9
Prophecy of the coming of Christ, Gen 3:15….The Incarnation of Christ, Luke 2:7
Firstborn was a man child, Gen 4:1…………….Firstborn was a man child, Luke 2:7, Rev 12:5
Firstborn became a sinner, Gen 4:1-8………….Firstborn was the Savior, Luke 2:34
The mother of all the living, Gen 3:20………….The spiritual mother of all the living, John 19:27
Returned to dust, Gen 3:19………………………..Taken to Heaven, Rev 11:19,12:1

*1. Since Eve was created without original sin as well as Adam, then the realities of these Old Testament “types” had to be without original sin also. We know that Jesus had no original sin, and so Mary, the New Testament reality of Eve had to be without original sin also, or else she was inferior to her “type”. See “The Immaculate Conception” on this website.

[T] The name “Eve” signifies that she is “the mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20).
[F] New Eve is the new Mother of all those who are alive in Christ . When Jesus gave Mary to the beloved disciple at the cross to be his mother, He gave her as a mother to all of us (John 19:27); note that he is mentioned by this title rather than any particular name – the ‘beloved disciple’ is each and every one of us. Being one of the seven last words on the cross, he spoke universal words (not the particulars and the domestic, along the lines of, “oh, I forgot about mum. John, look after her). She is our mother, because she is the mother of Christ, and the Body of Christ is the Church. And because she is our Mother, we honour her, as God tells us to (Exo 20:12).

4. The Woman of Revelation, Our Mother

Here is the culmination of all the previous types, where (in case you missed them previously!) all is revealed in glory.

The Lady of Revelation is not only Jerusalem and the Church: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1). The child who she gives birth to is an actual person, as is the dragon. It stands to sense that the Mother is also an actual person who gave birth to the child – Mary:

• [F] Arc of the New Covenant: revealed in Rev 11:19 (a verse before the one above – keep in mind that chapters were put in place later)
• [F] Queen Mother: Jesus is the Davidiac King, so Mary must be the Davidiac Queen Mother. This is confirmed by her coronation in the Heavens with the twelve stars. (Revelation 12:1)
• [F] New Eve: We see here that she is the mother of all Christians: “Then the dragon was angry with the woman , and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus” (Rev 12 :17). This confirms Christ’s words to us: “behold your mother!” (John 19:27).

The mystery of Mary’s greatness adds (only for our perception, of course) to the glory of God in manifold ways as a sign of His overabundant love and grace. What king so majestic, so perfect in charity, so generous and glorious would fail to honour and glorify his own mother, restrict our love for her? Indeed, Mary’s perfection does not diminish the glory or worship due to God, but “magnifies the Lord” (Luke 1:46). The abundance of grace which God has ordained to allow Himself to be moved beyond justice and beyond logic, beyond His hour that “has not yet come” is indeed beyond astounding – should we not be stupefied by this staggering overabundance of grace, in Cana as well as in the present? Let us entrust ourselves and the fate of all the world to her who Christ Himself has given to us, that all may be drawn closer to Christ and rest in His salvation.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Immaculate heart of Mary, pray for us.
Arc of the Covenant, pray for us.
Queen of Angels, pray for us.
Mary, Mother of Christians, pray for us.

< Saintly Interccession • Blessed Virgin Mary >